1. The Defendant’s loan obligation against the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 170,000,000,000, which is sought by this Court No. 2014,58524.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 31, 2010, the Gyeonggi Savings Bank Co., Ltd. loaned KRW 3.7 billion to NAC Co., Ltd under the Plaintiff’s joint and several guarantee.

B. The principal of the above loan was fully repaid, but as of October 22, 2014, the accrued interest and delay damages on the above loan remains in KRW 379,251,060.

C. On November 2014, the Plaintiff filed an order against the Defendant to pay KRW 170 million out of the accrued interest and delay damages on the said loan as the court below’s order to pay the Defendant KRW 2014 tea524.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Claims of this case" which the defendant sought in the above payment order.

On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed bankruptcy and application for immunity with the court No. 2012-7876, 2012-7876, and the said court exempted the Plaintiff from immunity on May 10, 2013. At the time, the Plaintiff omitted the Defendant’s claim for the above loans against the Plaintiff.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, since all obligations are exempted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, barring any special circumstance, the claim of this case against the defendant was also discharged, and as long as the defendant contests this, the benefit of confirmation exists.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, despite being aware that the Plaintiff had a claim for the above loan at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy or exemption, the Plaintiff did not enter it in bad faith in the list of creditors. Therefore, it constitutes an exception under Article 566 proviso 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation

In this regard, we examine whether the Plaintiff knew of the existence of the claim in this case and did not enter it in the list of creditors with knowledge of the existence of the claim in this case, and the statement of No. 1-3 of No. 1-1 to No. 3 alone, in preparing the list of creditors at the time of discharge, we know the existence of the